It is currently Mon Dec 11, 2017 2:21 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 132 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 4:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:44 pm
Posts: 89
Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:
Most likely the most valiant woman, as opposed to "the most valiant person of either sex" although it could be read either way.


OK, and just for sake of argument here (considering the arguments in the thread the history of the Silmarillion versus the history of Middle-earth) if we assume Christopher Tolkien made this edit, then he arguably took out an ambiguous statement concerning Galadriel -- and by adopting the AAm tradition into QS in general here, he knowingly took another example of more precise meaning (and considering that you think the likely meaning is most valiant woman) -- and an instance that compares Galadriel's valor not simply to the women of the house of Finwë, but to the women of the Noldor.

(MR version section 135): 'But of his own sons Orodreth alone spoke in like manner; for Inglor was with Turgon his friend, whereas Galadriel, the only woman of the Noldor to stand that day tall and valiant among the contending princes, was eager to be gone'

And with respect to the art of telling the tale, Christopher might be essentially trading one for the other, so to speak, because this 'now' appears in the same chapter as the 'valiant and fair' phrase (when the Noldor pass into the North). The corresponding description following Fëanor's oath in the revised QS tradition made no mention of Galadriel being valiant. This leaves the perhaps stronger description in The Silmarillion (by comparison to the first example raised in AR), to do the job, which, being ultimately set into the same chapter as the 'second' mention, at least raises the question of an extraneous phrase.

In a sense it 'kills two birds...' but Galadriel is still her valiant self of the QS tradition.

Not that anyone said otherwise, but editing together a work of art includes various considerations while keeping a bigger picture in mind. In short I think these two edits concerning the valor of Galadriel, whoever made them, are the result of natural editorial considerations.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 6:03 am 
Offline
Feeling grateful
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 32714
Interesting, Galin, although I'm not 100% that I understand the point that you are making. Virtually all of the second half of Chapter 9, "Of the Flight of the Noldor" was taken from the Annals of Aman, because that was the only late, full version of that part of the story that Tolkien wrote (at least so far as we can tell from HoMe). Both the "stood that day tall and valiant" statement that was left in the published text and the "fair and valiant" description from later in that chapter that was removed from the published text are from that source. Are you saying that because because Christopher kept the former, it made sense that he deleted not only the"fair and valiant" description from that chapter but also the statement that Galadriel was the "most valiant" woman of the House of Finwë (which really is the same as saying the most valiant of the woman of the Noldor, I would argue) from the earlier Chapter 5 "Of Eldamar ..." because the statement that was kept rendered both of the other two statements redundant? I'm not sure how much I agree with that, but it definitely is a point worth considering, and I thank you for raising it.

_________________
Woods is most felt. Nice! it's gentle on your mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 12:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:44 pm
Posts: 89
Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:
Interesting, Galin, although I'm not 100% that I understand the point that you are making.


That's probably because I confused the matter :blackeye:

In the QS tradition, as revised in the early 1950s, the 'valiant description' of Galadriel following Fëanor's oath was not paired with the description of Galadriel as the Noldor pass North. In other words, Tolkien added 'the fair and valiant' to LQSI but his revision to LQSI following the oath included: '... for Angrod and Egnor and Galadriel were with Fingon, whereas Orodreth stood aside and spoke not'. Ach, but it was 'paired' in the AAm tradition of course, if not in the early 1950s QS.

In any case the reasoning can remain the same: perhaps Christopher Tolkien excises the first statement of Galadriel's valor because he is not sure his father meant to imply 'most valiant person', and it might be read that way (as at least we both seem to agree that it might) -- considering too that the AAm description (following the oath) will drive the point home quite effectively. And possibly he also excises the 'valiant and fair' (AAm section 163) for sylistic reasons of repetition (even the sentence directly before this refers to the growing valour and endurance of Fingolfin's host).

Or maybe Tolkien at some point read through what he had and did something similar. That's not to say that referring to Galadriel as valiant twice in the same chapter is necessarily some sort of literary or artistic mistake, or that no similar enough examples can be found, but these things are subjective (and subject to change) when the narrative is read through (in arguably quicker fashion than it was written), especially with an eye towards 'finalizing' for publication.

Anyway I think in The Silmarillion we have the notably valiant Galadriel, and of course a leader of the Noldor herself (agreeing with statements in RGEO, published in the 1960s).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 2:38 pm 
Offline
Feeling grateful
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 32714
I do see what you are saying, but I'm not sure that I would agree that there is much significance to the fact that the "stood that day tall and valiant" comes from the Annal tradition rather than the Quenta tradition, since as I said, all of that part of the story comes from the Annal (accept for the Oath itself, which is another story altogether!). I think that was just part of the "amalgamation" process that Tolkien started and Christopher continued. Nor do I really see the significance of the "ambiguity" of the "most valiant" statement; if that was truly an issue that could have easily been clarified without completely removing the description of her as being so valiant. But I do agree that it is possible that Christopher decided that since he had included the statement that showed Galadriel as acting valiant on one occasion that it wasn't necessary to tell us how valiant she was over all.

_________________
Woods is most felt. Nice! it's gentle on your mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 8:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:44 pm
Posts: 89
Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:
I do see what you are saying, but I'm not sure that I would agree that there is much significance to the fact that the "stood that day tall and valiant" comes from the Annal tradition rather than the Quenta tradition, since as I said, all of that part of the story comes from the Annal (accept for the Oath itself, which is another story altogether!). I think that was just part of the "amalgamation" process that Tolkien started and Christopher continued.


Well you might be looking for significance in the part I confused (late night posting on my part I guess).

Quote:
Nor do I really see the significance of the "ambiguity" of the "most valiant" statement; if that was truly an issue that could have easily been clarified without completely removing the description of her as being so valiant.


But given the fact that Christopher can no longer ask JRRT the intended meaning, instead of 'choosing for his father' a safe enough edit is arguably to excise the statement -- and if so, in my opinion Christopher Tolkien need not see this as a reduction of Galadriel's character, because he knows the description of AAm (following the oath) is going to be part of the published Silmarillion, and thus well illustrate Galadriel with respect to this trait.

You might have edited it differently, and so might another person, and I'm just submitting (again, under the assumption that these are CJRT's edits that is) a possibility that to me anyway, seems a natural enough editorial path to take here.

Quote:
But I do agree that it is possible that Christopher decided that since he had included the statement that showed Galadriel as acting valiant on one occasion that it wasn't necessary to tell us how valiant she was over all.


Agreed, and of course the journey North was quite valiant with respect to both leaders and the host :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 9:13 pm 
Offline
Feeling grateful
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 32714
Fair enough. Thanks for the interesting discussion!

_________________
Woods is most felt. Nice! it's gentle on your mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 3:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:44 pm
Posts: 89
Sorry to bring this up again, but I thought I might at least bring this relatively recent thread to Voronwë's attention...

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread ... post669492


... in case you care to respond there or here, even though it basically goes over some of the points Mr. Hostetter already raised. Here is one point I continue to be puzzled about...


Quote:
Galin wrote: And why is Mr. Kane sure that Carl won't be the only person upset about this criticism? If he is being very careful as you say, and doesn't believe Christopher Tolkien deliberately reduced the role of women, why should he expect anyone to be upset here, or that the criticism should prove to be the most controversial of his book?



If one had simply done nothing more than put the matter in question form: 'Did Christopher Tolkien reduce the roles of female characters?' wouldn't this alone raise the question in the minds of readers: why would anyone reduce the role of female characters? And what is one answer that will arguably occur to the reader in any case? Misogyny.

Likewise I think simply consistently raising the issue of 'reducing the role of women' would arguably plant the question of misogyny in the reader's mind. And as Jim Allen seems to say, author's can't be held responsible for anything that the reader might infer; yet he also writes:

Quote:
Jallanite wrote: That can't prevent others from making inferences, sometimes even wrong inferences (and possibly correct inferences). I admit fully that it is very easy to infer that Kane intended to attribute misogyny to Christopher Tolkien.


And my reaction to that is: if it's 'very easy' to infer... well then I think that's a far enough cry from the general statement that authors cannot be held responsible for anything a reader might infer; and again it appears that Doug expected this part of the book to be more controversial than other parts.

So far I'm still baffled by this element of AR. I've read a number of reviews and even some of those that are generally positive seem to find this particular argument flawed (if not suggestive of something negative about Christopher Tolkien's character).

And for the record, I too take your word for it that you didn't intend to imply Christopher Tolkien deliberately went about reducing the roles of female characters (despite 'systematically'), but if so, why not make this much clearer so as to make something like a discussion about the interpretation of the word 'systematically' essentially a non-issue?



Obviously you don't have to respond here (or anywhere) Voronwë, especially if you feel you've said all there is to be said about this, but mainly I wanted you to be aware of the other thread, just in case you wanted to respond there.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 3:46 pm 
Offline
Feeling grateful
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 32714
Thanks for the heads up, Galin. It's nice to see that people are still talking about the book. Is jallanite Jim Allan, the author of An Introduction to Elvish? I'm glad to see that he found the book useful.

I did response briefly in that thread, but I'm happy to respond further here (I'm always happy to discuss my book!). But honestly, I'm not really sure what it is that you are puzzled about. If you want to clarify, I'll try my best to respond.

(I'd actually say that reviews are about equally mixed on this point. Arguably the most important review -- the one in Tolkien Studies -- is supportive of this point.)

Edited to add: Galin, would I be correct in assuming that "Findegil" at the Barrowdowns is NOT Wayne and Christina?

_________________
Woods is most felt. Nice! it's gentle on your mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 4:59 pm 
Offline
Feeling grateful
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 32714
Galin, did you reply to me at the Barrowdowns, and then delete it? I saw a reply, but when I went to respond to it, it was gone. :scratch:

_________________
Woods is most felt. Nice! it's gentle on your mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:44 pm
Posts: 89
Yes I did, but then I saw that you had responded here -- including that you would be happy to discuss things here -- so I deleted it (nor was the deleted post really what I wanted to say in any case).

Anyway, yes I'm pretty sure Jallanite is the Jim Allen you're thinking of, and H&S have posted at Barrow Downs I believe, but not under 'Findegil'.


So as I asked there: why are you sure that Carl won't be the only person upset about this section of AR? or why should you expect this matter to prove to be the most controversial part of your book -- if the (suggested) reduction of female roles in the Silmarillion was not systematic and deliberate?

I apologize in advance if I missed your specific response to this.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:00 pm 
Offline
Feeling grateful
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 32714
I'm afraid I still don't really understand what you are asking? Why did I think that people would be upset about the assertion that the roles of female characters were reduced by the editing process? Because it is the type of thing that people get upset about. Why did I think that it would prove to be controversial? Because it is the type of thing that tends to be controversial.

How's that for a singularly unsatisfying response?

_________________
Woods is most felt. Nice! it's gentle on your mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:44 pm
Posts: 89
Well, perhaps this might explain my confusion better, you wrote...

Quote:
Well, I for one understand Carl's indignation. I certainly expected that to be the most controversial part of my book, and I'm sure that Carl won't be the only person upset about it.


But as I read things, Carl Hostetter wasn't upset with the assertion that female roles had been reduced, but rather his opinion of your implication of why they were reduced (if so).

And do you agree that the mere raising of this matter (in the way that you have) at least might plant a seed, so to speak, in reader's minds? I mean, I assume you expected readers to wonder why female roles were reduced (again if so).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 11:20 pm 
Offline
Feeling grateful
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 32714
Galin wrote:
Quote:
Well, I for one understand Carl's indignation. I certainly expected that to be the most controversial part of my book, and I'm sure that Carl won't be the only person upset about it.


But as I read things, Carl Hostetter wasn't upset with the assertion that female roles had been reduced, but rather his opinion of your implication of why they were reduced (if so).


With the emphasis on "his opinion" I think I would agree with that. As long as that agreement doesn't imply that I think that said opinion is correct or justified. ;)

Quote:
And do you agree that the mere raising of this matter (in the way that you have) at least might plant a seed, so to speak, in reader's minds? I mean, I assume you expected readers to wonder why female roles were reduced (again if so).


Yes.

_________________
Woods is most felt. Nice! it's gentle on your mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 3:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:44 pm
Posts: 89
Quote:
Galin wrote: But as I read things, Carl Hostetter wasn't upset with the assertion that female roles had been reduced, but rather his opinion of your implication of why they were reduced (if so).

Voronwë replied: With the emphasis on "his opinion" I think I would agree with that. As long as that agreement doesn't imply that I think that said opinion is correct or justified. ;)


OK, but I would have thought your response would have rather been that you did not understand or expect Carl's reaction, because you think your book does not in any way call for it, or support his opinion.

Concerning Jim Allen's posts, he seems to think that an inference of intended misogyny is 'very easy', and his point appears to be (to me) rather that you were careful not to be explicit with respect to intention (either way), however. Maybe that's merely my misinterpretation of his comments, but to my mind that doesn't seem all that different from Mr. Hostetter's very first post -- although granted Carl writes that the implication is only just barely that, as opposed to something explicit.


Quote:
Galin wrote: And do you agree that the mere raising of this matter (in the way that you have) at least might plant a seed, so to speak, in reader's minds? I mean, I assume you expected readers to wonder why female roles were reduced (again if so).

Voronwë responded: Yes.


I'm not trying to annoy here, but can I assume this 'yes' includes that you agree that the 'seed' of misogyny will naturally enough spring to mind, especially when the reader encounters a digression like (concerning Ungoliant)...

Quote:
(with, together with the weakening of other female characters, leaves the unfortunate impression that Christopher finds it difficult to accept such a primary role for a female character)

AR


Anyway, you posted at Barrow Downs:

Quote:
Regarding the issue of the reduction of female characters, I continue to believe that the evidence shows that there is a clear pattern of this being a result of the edits done. I obviously have no way of knowing whether this was done intentionally, or not, and I did not mean to imply in any way that I believed that it was (I honestly doubt very much that it was).


So you doubt very much that the asserted reduction in female characters was intentional (which I think is strong wording if not simply saying that you don't believe it was intentional, although nothing like this appears in AR if I recall correctly, in any case), and do not think that the reduction was due to reducing the roles of minor characters (given your opinion in that area) -- but yet we still have a 'clear pattern' of the asserted reduction -- a pattern arising without intent?

Quote:
(I'd actually say that reviews are about equally mixed on this point. Arguably the most important review -- the one in Tolkien Studies -- is supportive of this point.)


What makes this the most important review? Or do you simply mean that you think it's the most important because it appears in the Tolkien Studies book review section? Anyway, after explaining the argument in AR a bit, Nicholas Birns writes (Tolkien Studies VI):

Quote:
Kane is on to something here, and this cannot be explained away by merely compositional rationales. Yet the Silmarillion already has far more to do with gender relations than The Lord of the Rings...


Well again, questions arise: what do you think Kane is on to Mr. Birns? And what can explain things here outside of compositional rationales?

By the way I might respond at Barrow Downs... again :D

Not that anyone necessarily cares, I realize! And I'm not sure it will be anything more than hairsplitting about the characterization of 'upset' in any event, although any response is in the 'might' stage at this point. I thought the thread would have more opinions in it by now, but one never knows.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:23 pm 
Offline
Feeling grateful
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 32714
Galin wrote:
OK, but I would have thought your response would have rather been that you did not understand or expect Carl's reaction, because you think your book does not in any way call for it, or support his opinion.


Obviously, I expected it, since I said said from the beginning. I even understand it. I just don't agree with it.


Quote:
Galin wrote: And do you agree that the mere raising of this matter (in the way that you have) at least might plant a seed, so to speak, in reader's minds? I mean, I assume you expected readers to wonder why female roles were reduced (again if so).

[
Quote:
b]Voronwë[/b] responded: Yes.


I'm not trying to annoy here, but can I assume this 'yes' includes that you agree that the 'seed' of misogyny will naturally enough spring to mind, especially when the reader encounters a digression like (concerning Ungoliant)...

Quote:
(with, together with the weakening of other female characters, leaves the unfortunate impression that Christopher finds it difficult to accept such a primary role for a female character)


Yes.

Quote:
Anyway, you posted at Barrow Downs:

Quote:
Regarding the issue of the reduction of female characters, I continue to believe that the evidence shows that there is a clear pattern of this being a result of the edits done. I obviously have no way of knowing whether this was done intentionally, or not, and I did not mean to imply in any way that I believed that it was (I honestly doubt very much that it was).


So you doubt very much that the asserted reduction in female characters was intentional (which I think is strong wording if not simply saying that you don't believe it was intentional, although nothing like this appears in AR if I recall correctly, in any case), and do not think that the reduction was due to reducing the roles of minor characters (given your opinion in that area) -- but yet we still have a 'clear pattern' of the asserted reduction -- a pattern arising without intent?


Yes. Without conscious intent.

Regarding the assertion of it simply being a product of the reduction of minor characters, no one who has made that assertion has been able to back it up with any evidence. Having looked at the edits perhaps more completely then anyone, I feel confident that overall effect is greater on the female characters than on the male characters. There may be about as many edits to male characters as to female, but percentage-wise it is not close. Moreover, the quality of the edits are different. A good example is the edit regarding Galadriel that I discussed with Carl earlier in this thread

Quote:
Quote:
(I'd actually say that reviews are about equally mixed on this point. Arguably the most important review -- the one in Tolkien Studies -- is supportive of this point.)


What makes this the most important review? Or do you simply mean that you think it's the most important because it appears in the Tolkien Studies book review section?


Yes, I believe that Tolkien Studies is the most important journal in Tolkien studies, and the book reviews in it are the most comprehensive and important.

Quote:
Anyway, after explaining the argument in AR a bit, Nicholas Birns writes (Tolkien Studies VI):

Quote:
Kane is on to something here, and this cannot be explained away by merely compositional rationales. Yet the Silmarillion already has far more to do with gender relations than The Lord of the Rings...


Well again, questions arise: what do you think Kane is on to Mr. Birns? And what can explain things here outside of compositional rationales?


I can't speak for Nick, but I assume that he sees the same things that I saw, and that the pattern can't be explained away by just saying it is a product of the minor edits.

Quote:
By the way I might respond at Barrow Downs... again :D

Not that anyone necessarily cares, I realize! And I'm not sure it will be anything more than hairsplitting about the characterization of 'upset' in any event, although any response is in the 'might' stage at this point. I thought the thread would have more opinions in it by now, but one never knows.


I'll look out for it.

_________________
Woods is most felt. Nice! it's gentle on your mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 5:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:44 pm
Posts: 89
Quote:
Yes. Without conscious intent.


OK which still leaves it open that you are sugesting something negative about Christopher Tolkien's attitude towards women, something 'revealed' unconsciously through this asserted pattern.

Quote:
Regarding the assertion of it simply being a product of the reduction of minor characters, no one who has made that assertion has been able to back it up with any evidence.


Well it would take a fair bit of time and energy to wade through HME as you have, look at all the relative material, and provide text and opinions to back up such an argument. Maybe someone is attempting this, or will, I don't know, but I can easily think of people who could make a much better case than I could anyway; again if they had the time.

And I assume you are not here talking about the argument of who is or is not a minor character in the Silmarillion. We already have one opinion, for example, that all these characters on your list are arguably minor; and just for the record I think Carl Hostetter is exactly on the mark with his: 'And I submit that the nature of a character has nothing at all to do with their being a major or minor character: it is the extent of their presence and the importance of their role in a story that determines that.'

Quote:
Having looked at the edits perhaps more completely then anyone, I feel confident that overall effect is greater on the female characters than on the male characters. There may be about as many edits to male characters as to female, but percentage-wise it is not close. Moreover, the quality of the edits are different. A good example is the edit regarding Galadriel that I discussed with Carl earlier in this thread


Where you noted: 'I can't think of any comparable edits where, for instance, a prominent male character is described as being "the most fair and valiant" and it is changed to say that he is just "the most beautiful" (or similar words). I don't believe there are any.'

Again I would have to see all the arguable edits to judge as to whether or not we can point to something similar enough (subjective as that might be). But speaking of valiant...

In QS (Lost Road, and the Narn) Gethron and Grithnir are described as 'though they were now aged they were valiant…' and by fate and courage they passed over the Shadowy Mountains with Túrin. If I recall correctly, due to the compression of the Silmarillion these characters have no names, and despite noting that the companions passed through great perils, they are not specifically each described as valiant. One might even argue that they can hardly be said to have been included as 'characters' at all in the 1977 Silmarillion, where they are 'aged servants'

And concerning the example of Galadriel, does an argument for the redcution of minor characters necessarily need to counter the specific Galadriel related edits you raise, if from another perspective Galadriel doesn't really belong, in the first place, on a list of characters who have been reduced?


I've already noted that I think there are reasons to have made both edits that you refer to in AR concerning Galadriel (with respect to considerations of redundancy and ambiguity) -- but more importantly, in the published text Galadriel not only shows herself to be valiant, but is expressly said to be both fair and valiant in the book itself. And if it was Christopher Tolkien's self appointed job to note significant author-made alterations, if he were to see the matter similarly, then I submit there would be no real need to note these alterations as hailing from JRRT himself.

In other words, what is significantly altered about Galadriel here that needs recording for the reader of HME? But compare to texts and commentary in which Galadriel's history is significantly altered, or something notably new about her has been introduced, much of which is presented in Unfinished Tales.

And not only do we have the 'seem inexplicable' comment in AR (or 'less explicable' in another section, where you offer no possible explanation in any case), you even go so far as to state that even in the unlikely event that the 'valiant edit' reflects a text not printed in HME 'it seems quite odd' that CJRT would choose to omit this, 'particulary without any explanation'

So there you still appear to question Christopher Tolkien's choice within a theoretical scenario where the change is Tolkien's -- and considering what question you are knowingly raising in your reader's minds, it baffles me a bit that you did not spend as much ink on at least reminding the reader of the ultimate picture of Galadriel in the 1977 Silmarillion.


Especially considering that she isn't in the book relatively all that much. Arguably :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 6:21 pm 
Offline
Feeling grateful
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 32714
Galin wrote:
Quote:
Yes. Without conscious intent.


OK which still leaves it open that you are sugesting something negative about Christopher Tolkien's attitude towards women, something 'revealed' unconsciously through this asserted pattern.


Which is why, again, I expected that this would be a controversial portion of the book. Which you continue to prove to be the case.

Again, I don't know what motivations, conscious or otherwise, went behind the editing decisions made. I am only able to say what my impression is. To me there is a clear pattern, which I felt it necessary to point out. To you, Carl, and others, not only does that pattern not exist, but you believe me to be some kind of evil figure for having the nerve to point it out. Fair enough.

Originally my draft had much less of this type of commentary, and was much more focused on the raw data that I had gathered. Ironically, of the several opinions that I got of people that reviewed part or all of that draft, one of the ones that was most influential to me in pointing out that more commentary of this type was necessary to make the work of sufficient interest, was that of Christopher Tolkien himself. Though I doubt that he was looking for this particular opinion.

Quote:
Well it would take a fair bit of time and energy to wade through HME as you have, look at all the relative material, and provide text and opinions to back up such an argument. Maybe someone is attempting this, or will, I don't know, but I can easily think of people who could make a much better case than I could anyway; again if they had the time.


I'm sure that you would do as comprehensive a job as anyone. But whether it was you or someone else, I suspect that I find such an argument no more convincing than you and others find my own. So much of this is subjective.

And with that, I'm not sure that there is much more that I can say about this subject.

_________________
Woods is most felt. Nice! it's gentle on your mind.


Last edited by Voronwë the Faithful on Thu Jun 21, 2012 8:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 7:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:44 pm
Posts: 89
Quote:
To you, Carl, and others, not only does that pattern not exist, but you believe me to be some kind of evil figure for having the nerve to point it out. Fair enough.


Voronwë, I never referred to you as an 'evil figure' of course, and part of what baffles me is that you do seem to be a nice guy and not someone out to get CJRT (from what I can tell regarding our various interweb exchanges anyway)...

... but if we are talking about impressions, then to my mind the seeming lack of consideration in AR with respect to why certain edits were possibly made, or the seeming lack of variant perspectives as far as what constitutes a true 'reduction' in a character... well to me this leaves the impression, intended or not, that you want to really shine one side of the coin here.

As Jason Fisher notes (I'll call this commentary A here)...

Quote:
One objection I would raise in Kane’s endless cataloguing of Christopher’s omissions is that he too rarely takes the time to consider why they might have been made. Instead, again and again, he “cannot imagine why” — or some variation thereof — Christopher would have cut whatever it is he cut (72, 90, 91, 96, 109, 140, 161, 166, 179, 212, 213, 235, et passim). Arda Reconstructed would have benefited from Kane’s putting more effort into trying to imagine why — that is, considering what legitimate reasons there could have been for each omission. This would have strengthened those cases where there genuinely does not seem to have been any good reason. There are a few instances where Kane does dig into the matter, attempt to see both sides, and then register his opinion; had this been the rule and not the exception, his conclusions would have carried more persuasive weight than they do.


Jason also noting later (with respect the issue of female characters, commentary B)

Quote:
For Kane to call attention to only the female characters in this way — and to impute a motive to Christopher to actively reduce their presence in the narrative — strikes me as either disingenuous or careless.


I would add if A is problematic (as I agree), how much more so when entering an area that you know is going to be contentious, and one that I think goes beyond the question of CJRT being 'faithful' enough to his father's intent with The Silmarillion.

If I had to choose I would choose 'too careless' Doug (which does not mean I agree the argument is compelling enough to have raised had you been more careful, however), not disingenuous or evil; and I mean too careless in the sense of not taking up arms against your own argument with enough vigour, or not being more careful with certain phrasing -- especially given this matter. And that may be subjective, but there it is.

And given your silence with respect to my fuller Galadriel argument, I'm going to assume you find it unassailably cogent ;)


And I know a lot of this is rehashing stuff already said here, so apologies for that much -- but if people check I never really gave my opinion earlier, or at least this 'directly' I guess (which I don't assume kept anyone awake at night, waiting and hoping) -- and at least it would be hard to argue that I was hasty in finally posting it.

... the opinons of any Ents aside :D


Last edited by Galin on Thu Jun 21, 2012 8:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 8:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:44 pm
Posts: 89
Just to add...

Voronwë a couple of your previous posts might be a bit confusing as to who posted what -- not intentionally of course, but looks like something to do with the way the quote function worked, or didn't.

If you could fix these that would be nice, but if not... well it's noted I guess.

And for the fuller review (from which I quoted above, although you probably have it in your review thread anyway) see the following link.

http://www.mythsoc.org/reviews/arda.reconstructed/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 8:25 pm 
Offline
Feeling grateful
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 32714
Fixed!

Thanks for sharing your thoughts so comprehensively. I hope that, like Jason, despite these complaints you find AR to be a valuable work on some levels.

_________________
Woods is most felt. Nice! it's gentle on your mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 132 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group